COLUMN: Everything in moderation

From Dina Bass', "No Loss for Words," Fall '99 From Dina Bass', "No Loss for Words," Fall '99In the early morning hours of Thursday, October 15, Courtney Cantor plunged from her sixth-floor University of Michigan dorm window to her death after a night of drinking. It is unclear whether Cantor drank enough to cause her fall or merely slipped. The two parents, alarmed at the tragedy that had touched their daughter's lives, asked me to explain Penn's policy towards alcohol consumption: "How does Penn handle student drinking?" asked one mother. "Are steps taken to make sure that students drink responsibly?" After four years at Penn, the question shouldn't have been difficult for me to answer. But it was. The reason it is so hard to define Penn's precise policy towards alcohol is that administrators themselves have yet to define it. Instead, the attitude towards drinking coming from the top is a conflicted hodge-podge of different ideas that try to balance the knowledge that most students drink occasionally with the fear that one of those students could be the next Courtney Cantor or Scott Krueger. So the students get mixed messages. One message is that the University is going to tolerate moderate drinking as long as it is done safely and the other message is that drinking will not be tolerated. In a Daily Pennsylvanian column last fall, University President Judith Rodin spoke of "affirming the rights of non- and moderate drinkers" and of punishing excessive drinking and dangerous behaviors like hazing and alcohol-related violence. In a column the year before she wrote, "I am not a temperance crusader. As an undergraduate at Penn, I had a great time. I hope the same is true for you. My goal is not to ruin your parties or your fun." The same message of moderation and responsible handling of alcohol comes through in various statements from on campus alcohol education groups. All this seems to indicate an acceptance of a baseline level of moderate drinking coupled with an attempt to make sure that this drinking is handled safely. But other policies seem designed to attack all drinking by criminalizing even occasional social drinking. For example, the University's move to invite the Pennsylvania State Liquor Control Board to campus for the last few Spring Flings, served to punish all drinkers, including many students who do drink safely. Yes, underage drinking is still a crime in the state of Pennsylvania and the LCE has the right to enforce the law. But the Penn police and administration did not have to invite the agency's to arrest students, a move that clearly sounds a note of disapproval towards all drinking. More recently, Rodin applauded the recent trend of fraternities and sororities to going dry as a move towards safer, more responsible Greek life. In reality, this trend could lead to unsupervised off-campus parties in place of the ones that can no longer be held in the official fraternity houses. Once again, Rodin comes off as disapproving of all Greek drinking, while praising "temperance" at the cost of safety. To add to the confusion Penn still maintains a healthy roster of what I like to call University-sponsored drinking events like Hey Day, Spring Fling and Screamers. While the University does not support drinking at such events, it continues to support the events, fully aware that they are major occasions for binge drinking. So what will it be, Dr. Rodin? A dry martini coupled with a push towards moderation or a lock on the keg that will push drinking underground while making it an even more glamorous and rebellious way to unwind? Unfortunately for students, University administrators don't seem to be able to make up their minds. The newest set of alcohol management suggestions developed by a Rodin-appointed committee in September attempts to mitigate Penn's "culture of accepted excessive drinking." But the report -- which provides for parental notification after any "drinking incident" may endanger students while attempting to discourage excessive drinking. If a drunk student is deciding whether an even drunker friend needs to be brought to HUP for medical attention, the last thing you want them to have to consider is whether they or their friend will get in trouble with their parents. Even more pointless is the idea that Thursday night drinking can be limited by increasing the number of Friday classes and restricting the number of CGS courses -- thought to be popular among late-night drinkers -- a student may take. Penn's policies remain a patchwork of educational programs, restrictions and punishments. The confusion between promoting safe drinking or attempting to eliminate it altogether certainly doesn't reflect a lack of concern on the part of administrators. Rodin, in particular, deserves praise for making student drinking a prime focus this year. But administrators appear to be running around like mice in a maze looking for simple, quick fixes to a complex societal problem that isn't going away with fewer CGS courses. The law says drinking is illegal for most college students. But Penn can still decide where to focus its efforts. My money says we can save more lives by moderating drinking than by forcing the party to move next door.